This guy Mike Sparks has some good ideas, and this is one of his better ones. His only weakness is a irrational hatred of the USMC. All the macho swaggering on the Women in Combat threads reminded me of this:

There is a chorus of voices today, some even decorated combat veterans lamenting the perceived loss of the "warrior ethic" in our military. These people define being a warrior as a rowdy, hard-living and drinking type who bulls his way through life's problems with blind obedience to orders and his reward is his right to brag ceaselessly about himself and his unit, trash talking the other services just as he would put a bullet in his enemy. Technological advances that can keep an outnumbered 12-Division Army victorious against third world country "baby-machines" that can crank out dissastisfied rebels with an AKM or RPG by the thousands are castigated as it gives them less chance to showcase their own personal toughness that can be boasted upon later at a bar or gathering. Strangely linked to this phenomena is a connection to a right-wing political agenda in knee-jerk opposition to peacekeeping operations like Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo because the current left-wing civilian political rulers of the military are advancing a social agenda in the military that is opposed to their "image" of the warrior ethic.
The irony of the latter, is that if the President were a combat veteran and sending them to peacekeeping missions, it would be "O.K". Even more weird is that the FICL crowd complains that by our Army being in places like Bosnia/Kosovo maintaining the peace, it is not going to be as ready for a war because its not shooting blanks at each other a few hundred miles away in Germany, when by being in Bosnia its PREVENTING THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE! The best way to win a war is to not fight it in the first place. Study Sun Tzu or B.H. Lidell-Hart or better the Bible and not action-adenture magazines and this will become clear. Think what the WWII generation could have done in terms of space exploration and science if it had taken out Hitler and the Concentration camps in the ‘30s and not turned a blind eye to the slaughter of the innocents. There would have been no flag raising on Mount Suribachi, no Medals of Honor, no D-Day, but 358,000 more living, instead of dead Americans. No need for the nuclear bomb, no Mrs. Sullivans losing all her sons in a cruel act of war. Instead of selling the men on the linkages of Balkan peacekeeping to preventing an ethnic war spreading to Greece/Turkey and farther and backing civilian leaders who despite their personal hypocrisies have chosen us a good path, we are fed a steady diet of isolationism and "America first": the same poisoned meat that gave us two world wars.
What the FICL crowd would have us to do is return to some mythical "good ole days" where we train for a war as we drink it up at the bars/brothels later lamenting the fatalistic lot of the "warrior" and "bond" together as we let the world collapse into a hand basket from hell so the "warrior" can charge into battle and save the day at the cost of thousands, of American lives. The Warrior would have proven himself in this life and be fulfilled, surrounded by his comrades.

View Quote

If this has piqued your interest: [url]http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/falsewarriors.htm[/url]

Ah yes, more ignorance from our liberal friend. I might suggest that you take a couple of history classes and most importantly; "The Way Things Are 101." It might open your eyes.
War is a inseperable part of this world. Always has been always will be. Basic human nature is for the most part unchangeable. For example, hatred. Men will always hate each other for one reason or another. The end result of hatred is the death of either party.
Your condescending outlook on warriors is laughable. We don't give a damn what people like you think. We are stronger and more fierce than you. The only reason you are safe is that someone stronger and fiercer than yourself is willing to protect you. If they were not there, the law of the jungle would dictate that you either grow stronger or die.
Harsh reality huh?

This sounds new-agey, but the warrior is a fundamental component of masculinity. I think of it as unbending focus and discipline so the warrior can survive the extremes of combat. I thought this from the article summed it up pretty good:
[b]The true warrior ethic is "ethical" and unselfish. It trains hard and sees the road ahead because its founded on SELF-discipline, not the tyranny of the loud-mouthed egotist. Study war instead of longing for it, and you will see that Armies that BELIEVED IN WHAT THEY ARE DOING fight far better than even those that are willing robots led by the ignorant. What we need today is a clear definition of the thinking, seeing warrior whose "head is in the game" that is built into the heart/mind of today's young recruit based on SELF-discipline. Those that simply think replicating the mythical old days where wars could be won by yelling/screaming and push-ups followed by rounds of drinks at the bar (if these days ever really existed) and adding harassment into our entry-level training are missing the boat by a mile. [/b]

Remember the 'pinning' wings video that was released several years ago and caused such a commotion?
It was a candid video of newly graduating paratroops getting their 'wings', studs and all, pinned to their bare chests in a 'cruel' fashion. The soccermoms, liberals, media, were all in a tizzy.
All I could think was...well, it is a tradition and that's the way it's been done for a pretty good period of time, and if I were going to get a jump pin, I'd want it pinned on the same way everybody before me got theirs pinned on them.
And if I couldn't take that little bit of pain that was so laced with tradition, how in the hell am I gonna react to some real injuries and real pain in a jump gone bad, firefight, etc.?
Eric The(YouCan'tJustSwoonAtTheEnemy!)Hun[>]:)]

Man, they wouldn't want to hear about the Russian airborne initiations then. This guy on AK-47.net recounted how his first day in the barracks, the guys stabbed him in the forearm with a screwdriver as a welcoming present. He couldn't cry out because he knew if he did, they would think he was weak and would beat him until he pissed blood.
I've seen videos of the NCO's drop kicking recruits in their boots, stomping over the recruits' stomachs, so on.

Remember the 'pinning' wings video that was released several years ago and caused such a commotion?
It was a candid video of newly graduating paratroops getting their 'wings', studs and all, pinned to their bare chests in a 'cruel' fashion. The soccermoms, liberals, media, were all in a tizzy.
All I could think was...well, it is a tradition and that's the way it's been done for a pretty good period of time, and if I were going to get a jump pin, I'd want it pinned on the same way everybody before me got theirs pinned on them.
And if I couldn't take that little bit of pain that was so laced with tradition, how in the hell am I gonna react to some real injuries and real pain in a jump gone bad, firefight, etc.?
Eric The(YouCan'tJustSwoonAtTheEnemy!)Hun

View Quote

So you too belive that you have to be a drunken masochist to be a real soldier, eh?
You also wrote this I beleve:

I've never been in the military, but IMHO what we have seen is a 'give us more time and we can make this female in combat thing work'!
That's just great if you're driving Hummers in some UN/NATO/Whatever 'peacekeeping' mission.
When and if the US faces a real 'war' in the future, when the very existence of the nation is at stake, then this social engineering that we've been engaged in for so long will quickly give way to a 'f' that sh|t, this is war!
At that point the females will be led quietly away from the front. Those are not my rules, it may not be fair, it's not anyone's fault, or whatever, it's just the way things are.
I believe that Sgt. Barnes (Platoon) said it best to Sgt. Red O'Neill - 'Sorry, Red, I can't afford to let you go, I need every swinging dick I can get.' (or words to that effect)
That's what he meant, and that's what some future platoon leader is going to be looking for in his men, before a great and terrible battle in some future war, every swinging....
Eric The(SplittailsNeedNotApply)Hun

View Quote

Which I assume you wrote before reading this:

Even more weird is that the FICL crowd complains that by our Army being in places like Bosnia/Kosovo maintaining the peace, it is not going to be as ready for a war because its not shooting blanks at each other a few hundred miles away in Germany, when by being in Bosnia its PREVENTING THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE! The best way to win a war is to not fight it in the first place. Study Sun Tzu or B.H. Lidell-Hart or better the Bible and not action-adenture magazines and this will become clear.

View Quote

Also, historicly speeking when real wars have occured and the fate of the nation is at stake is so far the only time women have been called upon to fight for their country; see Russia, China, Isreal, Vietnam, ect... but I guess thats when you need the real fighters and not the macho sobs who get themselves wasted "heroicly" charging machine gun nests with a bayonet?

Now try this link on for size:[url]http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5265/recruit.htm[/url] Here is my favorite quote:

The point I'm making is the battlefield is more than physical fitness...did bicep size stop bullets in Somalia? Or at Bastogne? Has it ever? If he read his military history he'd know the French started this "spirit of the bayonet" nonsense and lost millions of men, an entire generation--charging the inter-locking fire German machine guns, and planned artillery concentrations with just bolt-action rifles, bayonets attached, of course. Their audacity was not enough. Readers George and Ping are asking the wrong question, "soft or hard" is irrelevant. Is our training RIGHT?

Mike Sparks hates the Marine Corps because he was once a Marine Officer (in training). However, he was separated from the Marine Corps because he failed out of the Infantry Officers Course and was redesignated as either a supply or logistics officer, he subsequently failed out of that MOS school also.
The reason physical fitness is important is that pulling a trigger on a machine gun takes very little effort. But carrying the whole 58 lbs of a complete M240G in addition to the ammunition required is bit tougher. It doesn't matter if you are best trained killer in the world if you cannot get their to do the killing you are useless. Look at a paratrooper, rigged to jump they have over 100 lbs on their bodies, if you cannot move that over 100 lbs to the plane to even board you are useless to them, you won't be able to drop into combat. That is one of the biggest draw back to women in the military is most women lack upper body strength, many non-combat jobs require two women were it would only take one man because they don't have upper body strength to move items. Technology has yet to make the 103.5 lbs of a DPICM round not weigh 103.5 lbs.

[i]Think what the WWII generation could have done in terms of space exploration and science if it had taken out Hitler and the Concentration camps in the ‘30s and not turned a blind eye to the slaughter of the innocents. There would have been no flag raising on Mount Suribachi, no Medals of Honor, no D-Day, but 358,000 more living, instead of dead Americans. No need for the nuclear bomb,...[/i]
Now, the intention there is good, but that paragraph shows a real general lack of understanding.
Necessity being the mother of invention, much of the hard technology we use was developed during and for war. Hell, we would not have went to the moon in the 60's, without the help of captured?/liberated? German rocket scientists. NFW! The British came up with RADAR during WWII. And this is my favorite..."No need for the nuclear bomb." If there had been no need, nobody would have listened to what some at the time thought were the demented ramblings of a Jewish fellow with long, white, messed up hair. Nuclear power would have been developed much later. More than likely the [b]wrong[/b] folks would have split the atom first. Then, there would be a BIG need for it!

Ya know, before someone writes an article about the decline of the warrior ethic in the military, he should find out what it is. He makes up an image of a warrior ethic that nobody uses, then refutes it with what he feels a warrior is (no doubt a perfect description of himself, if those idiots in the USMC only knew a real warrior when they saw one no doubt he would be the Commandant by now!).
He comes nowhere close to defining neither the warrior mentality, ethics or ethos. When I get more time I will describe it as best I can, but it will take sometime to articulate it properly. For now I will say that when a warrior meets another warrior, both know it right away. Not allwarriors are in the military, and not all in the military are warriors.
and then this idea:

A simple solution to most of America and the military's problems would be to have a 2-year national service that ALL American citizens would have to do which would include a stint in the miltary if chosen and a nursing, police or wildlife conservation corps

View Quote

Yeah, we really need conscript LEO's... theres a good idea[rolleyes]
As far as this:

The point I'm making is the battlefield is more than physical fitness...did bicep size stop bullets in Somalia? Or at Bastogne? Has it ever? If he read his military history he'd know the French started this "spirit of the bayonet" nonsense and lost millions of men, an entire generation--charging the inter-locking fire German machine guns, and planned artillery concentrations with just bolt-action rifles, bayonets attached, of course. Their audacity was not enough. Readers George and Ping are asking the wrong question, "soft or hard" is irrelevant. Is our training RIGHT?

View Quote

Soft or hard is not irrelevant, for proper training is wasted on troops who are not physicaly capable of carring out that training, and carrying it out better, faster, and stronger than their opponent.

The Old Grouch's Military surplus<font size=3>www.oldgrouch.com</font id=s3>

So you too belive that you have to be a drunken masochist to be a real soldier, eh?

View Quote

Were those guys drunk? I couldn't tell from the video, but apparently you could. My point was the frigging PUBLIC's [b]reaction[/b] to the (gasp!)brutality of the video, Chief!
Masochist? I doubt many could do that to them in real life without swallowing some of their own teeth, but maybe YOU could. I couldn't.

Also, historicly speeking when real wars have occured and the fate of the nation is at stake is so far the only time women have been called upon to fight for their country; see Russia, China, Isreal, Vietnam, ect... but I guess thats when you need the real fighters and not the macho sobs who get themselves wasted "heroicly" charging machine gun nests with a bayonet?

View Quote

Sorry, but I don't compare the United States and its traditional views of protecting women and children from harm's way, with those of the Soviet Union, China or Vietnam.
How many women in combat roles do those nations have? I don't know, do you?
Insofar as Israel is concerned, that country's use of women in combat roles is known by me -
none, absolutely none. Period.
Women are used in auxillary, rear area ops, only. [b]Three[/b] women in uniform were killed during the October War in 1973, and the grief and loss, as well as the rage, that were felt by the Israeli public came close to bringing down the government.
I would think it has nothing to do with the inability of the women to hold their own, but more with the demoralizing affect that women in combat might have on the male soldiers.
The battlefield is not the proper place to test our nation's dedication to gender equality.
Eric The(That'sAFact,Jack!)Hun[>]:)]

I think this guy would be a good canidate for this re-birthing thing bleeding heart wacko's are spouting. For people who never " Bonded." Maybe he could become a girl scout or something like that, not, he would then be moaning that he doesn't belong because he did not sell as many cookies.If it is true he washed out of the Marines, the system still works. The so called Warrior Class as I see it is nothing more than those that see what needs to be done and do it, vs those sit on the side lines and wring their hands wishing they had the nerve to do the same. Then the envy boils over into trying to pick apart the achievers since they can only talk the talk.

Oh, and on a related note.... I find it funny that for such an expert his works are on a GEOCITIES site.........
I tend to be skeptical of anyone who claims to have a big business, be an expert on something, so forth and so on who doesn't even spend the money to get domain name.... heck my 2 bit operation did it, anyone else can too. Having a real site doesn't equate legitimacy, but having one of these geocities or other free sites doesn't lend any credibility, in fact in my view it takes some away as it tells me that whoever has the site is not to serious about whatever he is saying/selling.

The Old Grouch's Military surplus<font size=3>www.oldgrouch.com</font id=s3>

Originally Posted By STLRN:
Mike Sparks hates the Marine Corps because he was once a Marine Officer (in training). However, he was separated from the Marine Corps because he failed out of the Infantry Officers Course and was redesignated as either a supply or logistics officer, he subsequently failed out of that MOS school also.
The reason physical fitness is important is that pulling a trigger on a machine gun takes very little effort. But carrying the whole 58 lbs of a complete M240G in addition to the ammunition required is bit tougher. It doesn't matter if you are best trained killer in the world if you cannot get their to do the killing you are useless. Look at a paratrooper, rigged to jump they have over 100 lbs on their bodies, if you cannot move that over 100 lbs to the plane to even board you are useless to them, you won't be able to drop into combat. That is one of the biggest draw back to women in the military is most women lack upper body strength, many non-combat jobs require two women were it would only take one man because they don't have upper body strength to move items. Technology has yet to make the 103.5 lbs of a DPICM round not weigh 103.5 lbs.

View Quote

Once again STLRN beat me to it. BRAVO ZULU.
Sparks was found to be a complete non-hacker in the Marine Corps, but since he made it in the Airborne, he is suddenly an expert on matters military. Funny how that works.
Jarhead out.

I gotta hold on to my angst. I preserve it because I need it. It keeps me sharp, on the edge, where I gotta be.

I gotta agree with STLRN and Garand Shooter.
I've known about Sparks for a few years. he is is an idiot who has nothing better to do with his time than live in a fantasy-world and bash any ideas that are not his own delusional ones over the Internet. He and his little "1st tactical studies group (airborne)" [rolleyes] with all the (obviously made up) testimonials is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
-SARguy

But he IS Arborne now isnt he?
I know why STLRN doesnt like him, he bashes the USMC constantly. So what? Doesnt mean his technical ideas arent sound...I didn't know he was a Marine reject, I simply assumed that when ranted for geting rid of the Marines and Naval Aviation- which I absolutely do not agree with- he was just after a bigger share of the defense budget for his paratroopers.
You guys need to learn to judge ideas by their merits and not ignore things simply because you dont like the person or persons who thought them up. Perhaps his criticisms are valid? Ad hominim arguments arent going to prove that he is wrong and just maybe there might be better ways of doing things...

He ranted to get rid of the Marine Corps because he could not hack it there and it burns inside him every waking moment. He's consumed by his failure, so his "1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne)" is basically a big excuse for his own shortcomings.
He makes broad, sweeping generalizations about what he thinks other people assume about the "warrior culture," and then when he disproves those generalizations successfully, or with marginal success, he feels he's proven something. That's called a straw man argument, and it's just as invalid a way to win an debate as an ad hominem attack.
Using Mr. Sparks' writings to prop up your arguments is no way to prove the depth of your understanding of the military.

I gotta hold on to my angst. I preserve it because I need it. It keeps me sharp, on the edge, where I gotta be.

Originally Posted By Jack-B-Nymble:
[i]Think what the WWII generation could have done in terms of space exploration and science if it had taken out Hitler and the Concentration camps in the ‘30s and not turned a blind eye to the slaughter of the innocents. There would have been no flag raising on Mount Suribachi, no Medals of Honor, no D-Day, but 358,000 more living, instead of dead Americans. No need for the nuclear bomb,...[/i]
Now, the intention there is good, but that paragraph shows a real general lack of understanding.
Necessity being the mother of invention, much of the hard technology we use was developed during and for war. Hell, we would not have went to the moon in the 60's, without the help of captured?/liberated? German rocket scientists. NFW! The British came up with RADAR during WWII. And this is my favorite..."No need for the nuclear bomb." If there had been no need, nobody would have listened to what some at the time thought were the demented ramblings of a Jewish fellow with long, white, messed up hair. Nuclear power would have been developed much later. More than likely the [b]wrong[/b] folks would have split the atom first. Then, there would be a BIG need for it!

View Quote

That's what I meant by the article being contradictary in part, but it was part of a big rant I decided to cut short for everyone's mental health. Brevity....

I believe he is currently a rigger in the NG or reserves, but I may be wrong on that.
The reason he doesn't believe heavily in PT and the warrior culture is one of his failing was he was physically lacking. The warrior culture of the Marine Corps believes you cannot lead if you cannot keep up and he was not of the caliber to lead Marines. Basically he is saying the culture (and our physical requirements) are wrong and it could not possible be him that is lacking.

All that proves is that he didn't fall out of a couple of short runs and did some oush ups for a few weeks...airborne school is NOT difficult

I know why STLRN doesnt like him, he bashes the USMC constantly. So what? Doesnt mean his technical ideas arent sound...I didn't know he was a Marine reject, I simply assumed that when ranted for geting rid of the Marines and Naval Aviation- which I absolutely do not agree with- he was just after a bigger share of the defense budget for his paratroopers.
You guys need to learn to judge ideas by their merits and not ignore things simply because you dont like the person or persons who thought them up. Perhaps his criticisms are valid? Ad hominim arguments arent going to prove that he is wrong and just maybe there might be better ways of doing things...

View Quote

I think I pointed out that it is a laugh to critisize the warrior mentality when you cannot describe it properly.

The Old Grouch's Military surplus<font size=3>www.oldgrouch.com</font id=s3>

He comes nowhere close to defining neither the warrior mentality, ethics or ethos. When I get more time I will describe it as best I can, but it will take sometime to articulate it properly. For now I will say that when a warrior meets another warrior, both know it right away. Not allwarriors are in the military, and not all in the military are warriors.

View Quote

I'm interested in reading your version of what constitutes a warrior. The "warrior ideal" has varied greatly from society to society and from one historical period to another. You would, no doubt, consider a USMC sniper to be a warrior; yet in a place/time when face-to-face combat was esteemed (feudal Japan, for example) that sniper would be considered a treacherous coward, at best. This guy Mike Sparks strikes me as pretty much of a clown, but (with all due respect) how are you more qualified than he to define what a warrior is or isn't? Your "when a warrior meets another warrior, both know it right away" is a cop out just like the statement "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."
I respectfully await your clarification of the matter.

I will work on it tonight and see if I can articulate it properly... but it is not based of societal norms like in your exampe, but it is a personal mindset. The opions of others do not determine the mindset.

The Old Grouch's Military surplus<font size=3>www.oldgrouch.com</font id=s3>

ok, this is a rough draft, but the best I could do in 30 minutes. Anyone out there who wish's to please feel free to add, detract, critique as you see fit.
------------------------------------------
What is a warrior?
A warrior is a man of honor, who values his honor and integrity above all else, even his life. For this reason he will never allow himself to fail his comrades or his country as long as he still breathes. A warriors word, spoken or unspoken, is as good as done. For this reason you can depend on him when others would fail. His friends know they can depend on him, no matter what.
A warrior accepts the risks of his job, knowing full well each day may be his last. It is just a fact of life. Acceptance of this fact allows him to continue on when the odds seem overwhelming, to go places others fear to tread.
A warrior is loyal, loyal to himself, his comrades, and his country.
A warrior will not quit until the mission is accomplished, and the mission is priority one. Give a warrior a mission and he will see it through, or die trying. Failure is not acceptable to a warrior. Death is a fact of life, but failure is preventable. There is no excuse for failing yourself, you comrades, and your country on the battlefield.
A warrior is also humble, for he knows that he does not know everything, and is constantly searching for new knowledge. He does not boast of his great abilities, for he knows there is always someone that is better than he. He will, however search out those better than him to study and learn from them. A warrior never believes he is the best, but always seeks to become the best.
A warrior is intense in his preparation and his training, and indeed is often more intense in everything he does in life, for war demands intensity. Every action he takes he thinks about how it will relate to the fight. A warrior is professional in all he does.
---------------------------------------
As you can see, a sniper and a samuri would both easily meet this standard, even given the total societal difference.
A warrior is not, as Sparks puts it "a rowdy, hard-living and drinking type who bulls his way through life's problems with blind obedience to orders and his reward is his right to brag ceaselessly about himself and his unit, trash talking the other services just as he would put a bullet in his enemy. " and I have never encountered anyone in the military who thinks that is the ideal military warrior.
[img]http://www.geocities.com/bobmeyer_us/army3.gif[/img]

The Old Grouch's Military surplus<font size=3>www.oldgrouch.com</font id=s3>

Garand Shooter,
Thank you for the courtesy of replying. As good as your definition was, there are one or two things I would like you to further clarify about your definition:
1. Is not an ideologically motivated SS Einsatztrooper or an NKVD Commisar a warrior by your reckoning? As long as they are motivated by their missions and do not let their comrades down, it would seem so.
2. Your "warrior code" seems to place a great emphasis on following orders, though you phrase it more in terms of being dedicated to the mission. Surely a warrior should give thought to whether his mission is moral or not.

Originally Posted By Golgo-13:
Garand Shooter,
Thank you for the courtesy of replying. As good as your definition was, there are one or two things I would like you to further clarify about your definition:
1. Is not an ideologically motivated SS Einsatztrooper or an NKVD Commisar a warrior by your reckoning? As long as they are motivated by their missions and do not let their comrades down, it would seem so.
2. Your "warrior code" seems to place a great emphasis on following orders, though you phrase it more in terms of being dedicated to the mission. Surely a warrior should give thought to whether his mission is moral or not.

View Quote

1: By some terms, yes they are.. you will find warriors on all sides of all confilcts, and unfortunatley some will be misled/brainwashed/or believe in the wrong thing.
2: Yes, the properness of the mission would come into play, and that is where lotalty to the country comes into play. I chose the word country instead of government for that very reason, loyalty to ones country will sometimes not be loyalty to ones government.
I did write this kinda quickly and may, after I think about the best way to articulate it,go back and clarify that point... it does need to be added. Thanks for your input on that.

The Old Grouch's Military surplus<font size=3>www.oldgrouch.com</font id=s3>